Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard 1393

If the only thing that's changed is the values of input and output then yes I have a FOO sitting around. And if it's the same code I don't need to debug it do I.

But that's the difference; customer's called me because they want their own FOO not something sitting on a shelf.

And if a customer could just walk into a stationery store and pick up a FOO off the shelf, what am I doing there? :(

Now *that* is just wrong no matter what I-you mean by a FOO. It's the most long-term efficient way bar none. You'd rather I just plug in a FOO written for somebody else then debug it on the current customer (if I'm reading you right). That's script-kiddy stuff. I'd rather travel up to the divergence and write from there (I've just said that, hopefully saying it again will sink in that actual coding is just 10% of the job). And before you comment, note that I didn't mention rewriting everything from that level downward that isn't directly related.

Happens sometimes when I'm way out of my depth... usually that's time to call in an instructor to teach me or a subcontractor to do the work for me.

*I* don't need code, the customer's computer needs code.

Wow. Somebody should frame that in the "do not do this" hall of fame. Clbuttic (COBOL) structural error. Again I'm guessing what this guy's done, but sounds like the subroutine was an add-on not done by the original programmer. (Again), you have to go through the structure (I'm not referring specifically to source code) and redevelop from the point where the add-on becomes relevant.

At first glance, the case you're describing sounds like there's a very small portion of the mainline that should be a separate process called by both main and subroutines. But since I'm getting info from you in dribs and drabs I couldn't even say that for sure and frankly your antagonistic atbreastude doesn't do much for the creative-engineering process.

Define "co-routine", ('cause it's even worse if we have the same definition)

My "obsession" for a non-trivial project is deconstruction & reconstruction... disbuttemble things down to their lowest common denominators1 then rebuttemble according to proven architectural principles. Then underlay computer considerations then overlay human considerations. *then* code. not before, and if I've done things right, not after.

If you're referring to my posts concerning a trivial contest, that's just me on vacation in some respects.

;) Actually, I'm probably one of the most fast-accurate data-entry operators you'll ever meet; right up there with the stereotypical 90year old ladies (except I can't type and talk at the same time). But that's not really directly relevant.

rpl

1 My original wording was "break" but then considering this is xposted to a security group I thought that might imply bright-lights, cigarette burns, repeated moronic questions from people who insist I'm a liar and watching a bunch of "grand inquisitors" circle-jerk each other...